RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on December 27, 2011, 06:49:06 PM
-
Interesting play to discuss in the context of the current philosophy on catch vs no catch when a player is going to the ground. Does the same philosophy exist when the player doing the catching/recovering is a TeamA player trying to get possession of a kicked ball?
The B appears to be in great position but may have been slightly blocked by another Team A player. There is some discussion between B and F but no way of telling from the video what it was. Also not clear if the final call on field was touchback and replay confirmed or if final call was ball dead inside 1 and replay overturned to TB.
http://youtu.be/Uwt7W4Y9ppQ (http://youtu.be/Uwt7W4Y9ppQ)
-
Official was in the right place, and seemed to take his time making the call ... and it looked like the two were chatting back and forth ... all good signs, no?
-
The BJ ruled the punt dead in the field of play... appears the FJ ruled otherwise and I believe the final ruling on the field was a touchback. Referees... when conflicting calls occur, take this opportunity to give an explanation of the final ruling [replay or no replay games].
As far as the context/philosophy of possession... if this were a pass into the EZ and a Team A receiver did what this player did with the punt, would you have a catch for a TD or an incomplete pass? The analogy is to have one definition of possession... whether it be a pass, kick or securing a loose ball. Did this player going to the ground complete the process of possession?
There is a good argument for saying this player showed a "second act" of trying to place the ball on the ground in the field of play. Not an easy call unless you are pre-grounded in your philosophies of what possession is or isn't. So make the call... touchback or down inside the 1-yard line. I bet this play could generate 30-minutes of great discussion. Personally, I like the touchback call but am open to the argument for this being a second act/football move.
-
To Mr L's point re being predisposed...I admit I am predisposed to think a guy trying to down a kick would do like this guy did. On the other hand, a guy trying to score a TD would/should do all he can to hold on to the ball. He definitely would not try to leave it in the field of play. So knowing what the player is trying to do definitely affects the way I see the action. That is why I see this as a ball dead inside the 1 (assuming there is no GL shot that shows taht when the ball was being held up in the air, it was actually breaking the plane).
-
yes - there was a great discussion during the game on the chat line. My issue is more with the IR reversal as I don't see indisputable video evidence either on the ball penetrating or the "second act" issue. There was no direct GL view the "second act" is a judgment - granted revieweable in the catch/no-catch scenario - but it really should be indisputable otherwise we should go with the ROF.
-
Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.
I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.
In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....
As far as possession and completing the act, if this were a receiver and if he didn't take it all the way to the ground during trying to complete a catch (bounced it off his own leg), I think we have to rule no catch, even though he had contolled it up to that point. We've philosophically painted ourselves into this corner already.
-
The same rules apply for a catch as a recovery. The Team A player must maintain control while going to the ground. He lost possession just before his butt hit the ground. Touchback. Replay in the NCAA differ from the NFL in that the NFL RO get the same training. In the NCAA, it is dependent on each conference, on the supervisor and the amount of money they can spend on training the ROs. Conferences with NFL referees as supervisors have a better understanding of replay than conferences that have supervisors that never did replay.
-
The only thing to criticize on this play is the idiot R that initially announced that the ruling on the field was a touchback. What the hell was he thinking? He knew the ruling was not a touchback. Even though he didn't think so at the time, he obviously got in too big of a hurry and got verbal dyslexia.
The debate about possession could rage eternally. No debate about the poor announcement.
-
So the ruling on field was down inside the 1 and IR overturned? They had evidence that good? Must have seen more than we were allowed to see at home.
-
Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.
I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.
In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....
The argument that "the NCAA is at the mercy of the networks" is horse manure. The NCAA can fix that IF they really want it fixed. This is their game and the networks make a ton of money from it. It's time for the NCAA to quit letting the tail wag the dog!
-
Official was in the right place, and seemed to take his time making the call ... and it looked like the two were chatting back and forth ... all good signs, no?
I have always given the two hands the shoulders to indicate illegal touching bythe kicking team. Anyone else do that?
Just so I am clear on what I am thinking. We do have illegal touching in the field of play, but possesion was made by A (thereby ending the play) after the ball had crossed the goalline, therefore the result of the play is a touchback and B will not take the illegal touching spot.
-
My best effort at determining the announcements:
"The ruling on the field was a touchback. The ball was possessed in the field of play. Previous play is under further review."
"After further review, the ball broke the plane of the goalline and is therefore a touchback."
If I got that right, there were a few problems with the announcement(s).
-
Technically, A21 is attempting to recover the ball. However, the criteria for recovering is the same as catching the ball - maintain firm control of the ball through the ground. In my opinion, A21 never fulfills the criteria for recovery. Yes, he has a grasp of ball while airborne. But, the fact that he lost his grasp of the ball as his arse hits the ground says he did not have firm control of the ball.
If you buy into the idea that A21 never successfully completes the recovery, then the ball remains "loose" (from the punt) all the while A21 was grasping it. Ditto when A32 unsuccessfully attempted to recovery the loose ball. Then the action stopped ... due to the B's whistle.
If the B blew his whistle because he had A21 with possession of the ball completely outside of the EZ, why didn't he mark the spot with his bean bag. Or did I miss that on the video?
The play is playing out as an IW to me.
-
There is no need for the bag if the spot of illegal touch is the immediately same spot the ball is dead. That is what the B thought he had, a dead ball inside the 1. He signalled that. Perhaps he was then taken off by the F but if the B only saw this first touching as an illeagl touch (no possession)m what can he do? If he was all alone he could have bagged but that area was likely not his area for bagging so may have deferred to the B, who then chose to call it possession.
-
There is no need for the bag if the spot of illegal touch is the immediately same spot the ball is dead. That is what the B thought he had, a dead ball inside the 1. He signalled that. Perhaps he was then taken off by the F but if the B only saw this first touching as an illeagl touch (no possession)m what can he do? If he was all alone he could have bagged but that area was likely not his area for bagging so may have deferred to the B, who then chose to call it possession.
Touching precedes possession. Besides, when the punt is close to the goal line, you gots to get the bag in the ground.
-
When a punt returner fair catches the ball, do you bag that spot?
The bag can help sell things at times, and it could have here if the judgment was the ball was touched after broke the plane of the goal line. But the B saw the same thing I saw, a ball possessed and dead immediately. There is no need for the bag there since you are gettiing that spot with your foot, just like he did.
-
The play is playing out as an IW to me.
Can't be an IW since the ball bounces on the GL between A-21's legs prior to the whistle so it's dead by rule at that point.
-
I believe the devil boy is saying the whistle was blown by the B before the ball got there as he was ruling ball dead in possession in the field of play while ball was beng held in the air (with the player doing the holding having his feet firmly planted on tierra firma!!)
-
Can't be an IW since the ball bounces on the GL between A-21's legs prior to the whistle so it's dead by rule at that point.
Agree.
The whistle appears to sound when the ball is laying on the goalline, between A21's feet.
-
If we're going to apply the same possession and control rules to this as we do on a pass play, I'd have to go with the TB call and no possession in the field of play.
-
Pretty close vote on the play on the poll on Rom Gilbert's site: http://www.romgilbert.us/2011vidclip17.htm
-
When a punt returner fair catches the ball, do you bag that spot?
Sometimes.
It depends upon how far the catcher wonders away with the ball. But most fair catches occur well away from the goalline. There's no burning need to sell the call. A bag on the ground is worth more than a foot down.
What's your call on this, Hoss?
An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.
-
An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.
Based on where you placed a comma and what I put in bold, I've got one of these:
^TD
-
Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.
I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.
In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....
As far as possession and completing the act, if this were a receiver and if he didn't take it all the way to the ground during trying to complete a catch (bounced it off his own leg), I think we have to rule no catch, even though he had contolled it up to that point. We've philosophically painted ourselves into this corner already.
There was no Television fixed GL camera but there might be one in the stadium system. If so it would only be seen by the Replay guys in the booth. Most D1 stadiums have their own Replay camera system in place. There are usually 5 cameras at a minimum (2 end zone cameras, 2 goalline cameras and 1 High 50 camera). Those 5 cameras feed into the Replay system. When TV comes to town to do a game the TV feed is connected to the Replay system through the High 50 port. The Replay guys have access to everything TV shows and the remaining stadium system cameras.
So.......Replay may have had a shot (GL) that TV didn't have access to. Not sure but they might have.
-
Based on where you placed a comma and what I put in bold, I've got one of these:
^TD
But, you did not bold "off balance" which means he may be judged as an airborne receiver "going to the ground" in which case ^no
-
Let's say #21 never loses possession and continues to "Plunge" into the Endzone and lands with ball clearly in control.
That has to be a TOUCHBACK. No way he could be deemed in possession and dead immediately in that milli-second of time on the 1yd line when he is leaning into the endzone.
It is immaterial where he is leaning. All that matters is where the ball is. And that being said we are screwed because we do not have a definitive view of where the ball is. Heck he could have been standing in the end zone and if he grasped the ball before it broke the plane, it should be dead wherever it was when he got a firm grasp and control of the ball
-
What's your call on this, Hoss?
An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.
A bag on the ground when that spot is already marked is not needed if the only reason it is being dropped is to mark a spot.
As for your play, clearly the prevailing philosophy is to make this incomplete. But we are gettng back to what the involved player is trying to do. In the case of the receiver, he is trying to demonstrate possession of a ball that has crossed the goal line. In the case of the gunner, he is trying to demonstrate possession PRIOR to it crossing the goal line.
-
There was no Television fixed GL camera but there might be one in the stadium system. If so it would only be seen by the Replay guys in the booth. Most D1 stadiums have their own Replay camera system in place. There are usually 5 cameras at a minimum (2 end zone cameras, 2 goalline cameras and 1 High 50 camera). Those 5 cameras feed into the Replay system. When TV comes to town to do a game the TV feed is connected to the Replay system through the High 50 port. The Replay guys have access to everything TV shows and the remaining stadium system cameras.
So.......Replay may have had a shot (GL) that TV didn't have access to. Not sure but they might have.
Not sure where that is true, it is NOT true in any SEC stadium. Replay gets the cameras that are put in place by the production company, no more, no less. There are no "permanent cameras" that are in the replay aresnal, there are no "permanent cameras" in place at all, with the exception of some web cameras for everyday, not game use. The replays come from the production truck, not from any permanent cameras to which TV does not have access.
When Bobby Gaston was head of officials for the SEC, he requested that each stadium place permanent cameras on each goal line, and that the feeds be made available to TV. He was told that the cost (over $50,000 per stadium) was too high, and that the configuration of some stadiums would make it impossible. Having worked in the electronics industry, and with the SEC, I think $50,000 per stadium is WAY too high an estimate. But even if it were true, for the cost of one or two commercials in the SEC Championship game, the entire conference could have been done.
-
Not sure where that is true, it is NOT true in any SEC stadium. Replay gets the cameras that are put in place by the production company, no more, no less. There are no "permanent cameras" that are in the replay aresnal, there are no "permanent cameras" in place at all, with the exception of some web cameras for everyday, not game use. The replays come from the production truck, not from any permanent cameras to which TV does not have access.
When Bobby Gaston was head of officials for the SEC, he requested that each stadium place permanent cameras on each goal line, and that the feeds be made available to TV. He was told that the cost (over $50,000 per stadium) was too high, and that the configuration of some stadiums would make it impossible. Having worked in the electronics industry, and with the SEC, I think $50,000 per stadium is WAY too high an estimate. But even if it were true, for the cost of one or two commercials in the SEC Championship game, the entire conference could have been done.
I made too broad of a statement. Every Sun Belt Conference school has this set up and I am sure many others do as well. Conferences where every game is broadcast on TV (SEC, Big 10, Big XII, etc.) probably don't need permanent cameras and just depend on TV. I agree with Al that every stadium should have GL cameras in place for every game. It is the most important line in the game.
-
slo-mo replay I say the Team A player has control of the ball just outside the GL. and by rule the ball is dead at this point. doesnt matter what he does afterwards. whether he drops it, leans or takes the Nestea plunge (excellent metaphor btw).
but at live speed on the field, since the player DID fall into the EZ and the ball was on the GL, I think its awfully tough to split hairs and say he had possession at the 6 inch line. I vote touchback.
isn't this kind of a corollary to the "no cheap scores, turnovers, etc." philosophy? say this was a Team B player making an interception here. for argument sake, say the ball never came loose, but instead he fell on his rear in the EZ with the ball. would we vote momentum exception and give Team B the ball at the 3 inch line? or would we vote touchback?
-
I believe the words immediately before "off balance" established the receiver met the requirement of one foot down inbounds. I don't believe maintaining one's balance has anything to do with catch/no catch in this example. Once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line: ^TD
-
As for your play, clearly the prevailing philosophy is to make this incomplete. But we are gettng back to what the involved player is trying to do. In the case of the receiver, he is trying to demonstrate possession of a ball that has crossed the goal line. In the case of the gunner, he is trying to demonstrate possession PRIOR to it crossing the goal line.
I don't see anything in the rules or interpretations that even suggests we are to modify the criteria for catch (recovery) based upon what the receiver is trying to do - whether it be TD, TB, inbounds/OB, whatever. I see this as a one-size-fits-all application.
BTW. "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed." 2-4-3-f
-
I don't see anything in the rules or interpretations that even suggests we are to modify the criteria for catch (recovery) based upon what the receiver is trying to do - whether it be TD, TB, inbounds/OB, whatever. I see this as a one-size-fits-all application.
BTW. "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed." 2-4-3-f
I am saying that we KNOW what the player is trying to do and his intent should be a part of our thought process, even at the subconscious level.
And the WIQ rule is only applicable WHEN IN QUESTION. If I have no doubt it was possessed before it was PUT DOWN, then the WIQ is N/A
-
I am saying that we KNOW what the player is trying to do and his intent should be a part of our thought process, even at the subconscious level.
And the WIQ rule is only applicable WHEN IN QUESTION. If I have no doubt it was possessed before it was PUT DOWN, then the WIQ is N/A
I recall that intent, either stated or implied, appears in rule applications, e.g. targeting, illegal passes to conserve/consume time & simulated substitution/replacements. Consequently, the rules makers do provide written support for factoring in intent. The absence of "intent" in the written catch/recovery criteria says they don't want it.
The fact that the onfield ruling by the B was overturned by IR says the situation was questionable. ;D
-
Interesting that it seems most of the argument in favor of calling this a TB requires the use of the "catch/no-catch" philosophy with regards to a pass. Those wanting the TB say that as the player falls to the ground and loses the ball it demonstrates he did not have possession. The reality is that whole philosophy is in the rulebook (AR's only I believe) and only addresses "airborne receivers". This Team A player was not an airborne receiver. He was already on the ground when he touched the ball. Me thinks perhaps you are mixing oranges and tangerines
-
Interesting that it seems most of the argument in favor of calling this a TB requires the use of the "catch/no-catch" philosophy with regards to a pass. Those wanting the TB say that as the player falls to the ground and loses the ball it demonstrates he did not have possession. The reality is that whole philosophy is in the rulebook (AR's only I believe) and only addresses "airborne receivers". This Team A player was not an airborne receiver. He was already on the ground when he touched the ball. Me thinks perhaps you are mixing oranges and tangerines
Me thinks you not looking at the right video.
A12 jumps into the air and grasps the ball with both hands while airborne (~0:36).
-
SUMBEECH!! Right you are. Well....he did not intend to jump. ;D
I will just stick with original position...he came to the ground IN POSSESSION and then started a 2d act of PUTTING the ball down in the field of play.
-
A little late, but what happens if #21 comes to the ground with his feet on the goal line?
-
A little late, but what happens if #21 comes to the ground with his feet on the goal line?
Nothing changes. It is all about the status of the ball and its location. Where the feet are has nothing to do with where the ball is. The NFL is different than NCAA. A lot of people get confused when the see an NFL player touching the end zone and then they touch the ball. For NCAA the player can be in the end zone all he wants as long as the ball doesn't break the plane of the goalline.